Rav Chisda said: A domesticated animal, half belonging to a gentile and half belonging to a Jew, it is permitted to slaughter it on Yom Tov.What is the reason? Since it is impossible to otherwise obtain an olive's measure of meat without slaughter.But dough, half of which belongs to a gentile and half of which belongs to a Jew, it is forbidden to bake it on Yom Tov.What is the reason? Since it is possible to divide it during kneading.

They inquired of Rav {our gemara: Rav Huna. Note similarity between Huna and Hanei}: These villagers upon whom the government has imposed the {baking of} flour of {gentile} soldiers, may they bake on Yom Tov?{Alternatively: it was the villagers that asked him.}He said to them: We shall see, if they {=the villagers} give a loaf to a child --if the gentiles do not object to it, then each and every loaf is fit for an Israelite {our gemara: a child} and it is permitted.and if they object, then it is forbidden.

And we do not hold by this of Rav, but rather, regardless it is forbidden. For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: We may invite a Cuthean for Shabbat but we may not invite a Cuthean for Yom Tov {during which we do melacha for ochel nefesh} as a decree lest we increase on his behalf {and thus violate Yom Tov}.

And we say that Rava directed {/led} Mar Shmuel and expounded: We may invite a Cuthean on Shabbat {where there is no concern one will increase in melacha since all melacha, including for ochel nefesh, is forbidden} but we do not invite a Cuthean on Yom Tov as a decree lest we increase on his behalf.

Mereimar and Mar Zutra, when a Cuthean visited them on Yom Tov, they would tell him: If it is acceptable to you that which we have exert ourselves {in preparing food}, all is good, but if not, {know that} additional effort on your account we shall not exert ourselves.

It was stated {by Amoraim}: If one bakes from Yom Tov for the weekday:Rav Chisda said: He is lashed.Rabba said: He is not lashed.

Rav Chisda said he is lashed -- we do not say that since if guests visited him, it {=the bread} would have been fit for them -- so too now {that guests have not visited} it is fit for them {so it is not so much preparing for weekday}.And Rabba said he is not lashed -- we do say "since..."And the halacha is like Rabba, and we have already elucidated this in perek elu ovrin in Pesachim.

16 And in the first day there shall be to you a holy convocation, and in the seventh day a holy convocation; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done by you.

I deduce that even the soul - nefesh - of an animal is implied, just as is written {Vayikra 24:18}:

יח וּמַכֵּה נֶפֶשׁ-בְּהֵמָה, יְשַׁלְּמֶנָּה--נֶפֶשׁ, תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ.

18 And he that smiteth a beast mortally shall make it good: life for life.

Therefore it teaches לכם - "to you" -- to you and not to Cutheans, to you and not to dogs. These are the words of Rabbi Yossi haGelili.Rabbi Akiva says: Even the "soul" of an animal is implied. If so, what is taught by lachem -- to you and not to Cutheans.And what did you see to include the dogs and exclude the Cutheans? (I include the dogs whose provisions are upon you {since they are your pets} and I exclude Cutheans whose provisions are not upon you.

And the halacha is like Rabbi Yossi haGelili, for the Tanna said plainly {with no dispute} like him. For we learned {in a Mishna}: The dough of the dogs, when the shepherds eat from it, is obligated in challah and may be cooked on Yom Tov, etc.And we have established that a stam Mishna vs. a dispute in a brayta, the halacha is like the stam Mishna.